ok, ok, one more update/journal entry/blog(i hate that word)before i go upstate…
and it’s sort of about politics!
exciting, huh.
specifically about the ways in which people voted in the last election.
and even more specifically, the ways in which people voted against their own interests, which is, anthropologically speaking, pretty fascinating.
for example: a vast majority of people in the ‘red’ republican states stated in polls that they thought that john kerry would be better for the economy and better for health care and better for protecting their jobs. but they voted for george bush on issues that don’t directly affect them.
and a vast majority of people in the ‘blue’ democratic states thought that george bush would be better for tax cuts and the stock market, but yet they voted for john kerry for many issues that don’t directly affect them.
so the real story of this election is actually people voting against their own self-interest.
which is, anthropologically speaking, very interesting.
a lot of people were asked the question, ‘why did you vote for bush/kerry?’, but very few people were asked, ‘which of the issues at play in the election affect you directly, and which of the issues are issues that you care about in an abstract way?’
it’s almost as if people in the red and blue states felt that voting for a candidate based on issues that actually affect them directly was somehow distasteful.
i.e-it was hard to find a new yorker who said, ‘fuck it, i’m voting for george bush because i’m rich and i want my tax cuts.’
and it was also hard to find a southerner or midwesterner who said, ‘fuck it, the chance of a terrorist attacking my grain silo or mini-mall are about zero, so i’m going to vote for john kerry because i’m middle class and i want my government hand outs.’
so the strange story of this election was a weird sort of altruism, in that very few people were actually motivated to vote based on issues that had a direct effect on their lives.
-moby
